Site icon Legal Vidhiya

TUKLAL YADAV  VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND 19 SEPTEMBER,2018

Spread the love

TUKLAL YADAV  VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND 19 SEPTEMBER,2018

CitationLaws (JHAR)2018-19-9
Date of Judgment19 Sept,2018
CourtJharkhand High Court
Case TypeCr. Appeal
AppellantTuklalYadav
RespondentState of Jharkhand
BenchH.C.Mishra, J, Mr.JusticeB.B.Mangalmurthi, Mr.Justice, Anil Kumar Chaudhary
ReferredSection 372,378 Cr. P.C, 498A,304B I.P.C, Rule 152 of the High Court Of Jharkhand Rules,2001

Facts  of the case

  1. Whether acquittal appeals arising out of the appellate judgments passed by the session judge court should be heard by a Division Bench or by Single Judge.
  2. Whether applications for leave or special leave to appeal under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C and Section 378 (4) Cr.P.C have to be filed separately as independent applications or can be filed by way of interlocutory applications 
  3. Whether acquittal appeals should necessarily be registered as Accquittal Appeals and not as Criminal Appeals.
  4. Whether the order that is passed by Single Judge referring the acquittal appeals against the orders passed by Session Courts as per Rule 152 of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules, is following Section 372 Cr.P.C or whether such appeals may lie to the courts to which appeals ordinarily lies that is the Single Judge according to the Section 372 Cr.P.C
  5. Whether there is a need to amend Rule 152 of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules,2001 following the amendment of Section 372 of Cr.P.C.
  6. Whether the appeals against the order of acquittal in complaint cases can be filed before the Session Court under Section 372 Cr.P.C or the complainant to appeal, the High Court has to get an application for special leave to appeal. 
  7. Whether the applications for leave or special leave to appeal, in the appeal for acquittal against the order passed by session courts are to be decided by the Division Bench as it is done presently or it should be decided by the single judge under Section 372 Cr.P.C, and that court can also the court which is deciding the main appeal have the jurisdiction to decide whether leave or special leave to appeal has to be granted or not in a particular case. 

Hence all these questions of Law were referred to the Larger Bench and these questions were addressed to the bench by learned Counsels from both sides. 

Arguments

Learned counsels Sri Indrajit Sinha, Sri Sachin Kumar, Sri Vishal Kumar Tiwary, Sri K.S. Nanda, from the side of the appellants, and Sri Pankaj Kumar, from the side of the state.

The learned counsels contended that the questions which are raised in this case have already been addressed by the Apex Court in Satyapal Singh’s case 

In the said case the father of the deceased had approached the high court against an order of acquittal under the provision of section 372 of Cr.P.C .The high court had disposed of the appeal without even examining whether leave to file an appeal under the said provision of section 378 of Cr.P.C could be granted to the appellant or not. the Apex court in its judgment considered the report of the law commission on victim’s rights and compensation and held that the victim had a statutory right to prefer an appeal against the acquittal order or conviction order for a  lesser offense or an order imposing inadequate compensation under the provision of section 372 Cr.P.C.

However, the ApexCourt also held that this right must be read along with its main enactment which is section 372 itself, and together with sub-section 3 of section 378 Cr.P.C.that will be rendered nugatory.

Therefore the Apex Court held that the victim including the legal heir and others has a right to question the correctness of the judgment and order of acquittal by preferring an appeal to the High Court under Section 372 cr.p.c 

With regards to question no 3 which was referred to the larger bench the learned counsels contended that the complainant can apply for special leave to appeal against an acquittal order.

The counsel contended that even though section 372 of Cr.P.C lays down that no appeal shall lie from the judgment of the High Court 

The learned counsels presented many arguments with regard to the referred questions and to get answers to those referred questions they cited many leading cases related to those questions

Judgment

When all these questions of the law came before the full bench of the Jharkhand high court with regards to the above-mentioned question no 1,2,3 that was referred to this court said that to decide these questions Sections 372,378 of Cr..P.C and Rule 152 of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules,2001, that need to be referred here. 

Thus, by going through the said provisions under Cr.P.C and the leading cases related to it the court was able to lay down the correct position of law with regard to those three questions these courts decision are as follows

After that with regard to the referred question no 4, the court clarifies that the victim, who is not the complainant in a private complaint case, shall not be entitled to prefer an appeal against acquittal under Section 372.

Further with regard to the referred question no 6. The court by clearing the confusion of the division bench stated that after going through all the considerations of the learned counsels we are of the view that application for leave or special leave under Section 378 of Cr.P.C cannot be filed separately there is no need to file it separately as an independent application rather it can be filed by the way of interlocutory application to avoid the multiplicity of cases.

Then by answering question no 5 of the referred question, the court stated that they agree with the views of the learned counsels that is the bench that decides the main appeal should have the right to decide whether the leave or special leave should be granted or not.

With regard to question no 7 the court stated that an application for leave to appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. shall only be maintainable in the appeals that are arising out from the original judgments passed by the session courts and it will lie before a division bench.

The court further held that according to all the answers that were given by the court to the referred questions those clusters of appeals are not maintainable as per the answers, because all these appeals rise from the appellate judgment by different session courts, so the court dismissed all the appeals and also all the filed I. A which was filed was also dismissed.

Hence it was held that if the appeal is arising out of the original judgment then orders of acquittal or conviction for a lesser offense passed by the court. if the substantive sentence of fewer than ten years of imprisonment that have been passed by the court then, in that case, an appeal will lie before the single judge of this court, and when the appeal is regarding the offense punishable with ten years of imprisonment or more then that then in such case the appeal will lie before the Division Bench of the said High Court.

THIS ARTICLE ON CASE ANALYSIS IS WRITTEN BY HIDATUL FATIMA LAW STUDENT AT ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY AND AN INTERN UNDER LEGAL VIDHYA.

Exit mobile version